Pugs is incredibly slow, slower than any 5.x release of Perl. Its in Tcl territory. The way Pugs is built, it is unlikely to get much faster, hence it is useless to anyone who really uses perl on a daily basis, which is why they should stop indulging it and move on.
The last thing I want to see is the Perl6 project weighed down by another goal. Its bad enough people are wasting so much time toying around with Pugs, which regardless of what you read is throwaway code, yet seems to be capturing the interest of most of the posts on the perl6 lists.
Which is the entire crux of this issue. The Discovery Institute and its theological backers have seeded the false notion that evolution is highly controversial, questionable, has no legs to stand on etc.
Certain groups think the popular adoption of religious doctrine in public institutions is a good thing. In a decade when sermons are required to be approved by the Federal Spiritual Communications Board, they'll understand the separation of church and state was designed to protect them, not marginalize them.
How many times have we seen "shuttle replacements"??? And Popular Mechanics/Science has just turned into military industrial porn. Do even 1% of their "artist renderings" of nuclear fighter aircraft or nanotube-hulled destroyers or hypersonic submarines (yes, all improbable/impossible, that is my point) ever make it even into the clay mockup phase?
People need to get over their hang-up that only the NYT, WSJ etc can report the news. Reuters AP etc all provide quality reporting (which is why their articles constitute over 50% of the content of every newspaper), and this content is widely available on the web. The NYT is neither deeper (more intellectual) or broader (more variety) than most other news sources these days.
What you're paying for with a newspaper is the cost of paper, and delivery, that's it
Thank you. For far too long people have tried to cast old media (film, print, audio) as being in the "content" business, but this is absurd. People can and have created quality content (even pre-web) completely outside of the infrastructure of old media. All these companies really own is manufacturing, distribution, and most importantly placement rights (the ability to drop their physical product in the right places).
These firms are in fact in the manufacturing and distribution business, which is been made totally redundant by the web, which is why they will die.
Its not that it "should" be free, it is free - every fact that the NYT wants to charge for will be available elsewhere (99% of time) and will be crawled, indexed and cached by a relevance engine.
As for newspaper "quality", give me a break, over half of the content is repurposed wire feeds, even for esteemed rags like the NYT. People get very misty-eyed when envisaging the apparent loftiness of the NYT, WSJ, etc, but mostly it is undeserved or a remnant of another era.
I'm not the one pontificating about world hunger to fawning morons. In any case your entire post is a non-sequiter - where did I say his money should not go to sustainable development. That said, I applaud your shabby attempt to appear intelligent....keep trying.
I give Page and Brin kudos for pagerank, but frankly I don't think he knows anything about space travel and even less about solving world hunger, although if he were to start, he could sign over all his shares in GOOG to a feed-the-children charity, which I doubt he will do (talk's cheap, Larry).
They didn't offer shares to their employees when they were private? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.
I wasn't specifically referring to Google at this point, and of course any private firm that offers shares, is doing so because it hopes to IPO one day.
A company like Sun, with tens of thousands of employees, has an incredible burn rate with regards to compensation, benefits, etc. Sun could easily go broke in a few years unless revenues ratchet up. Novell, SGI etc are in a better position by virtue of having few(er) employees, so their burn rates are not too bad. Microsoft is in a class all its own, the annual interest alone from their horde is larger than the cash balance of many firms with as many employees. It will take a very long time for MS to die.
If you want to grow a company to be very big very fast, like Google, you are going to have to go public, period. There is no other way to raise that much cash that fast. No bank is going to lend you the money, they aren't in the business of funding business plans anymore, they have moved on to secured lending like mortgages and car loans. VCs will fund you but they only do it to cash out in one fell swoop later, which requires an IPO. They also won't give you the sheer volume of cash needed to get big fast.
Now you could try to self-fund from the firm's income, but that won't happen quickly unless you are selling drugs.
Also note that your employees, the best ones, are constantly being lured away by the thought if stock options from a competitor. Compensation is important, and its easier to let the investing public do the heavy lifting.
Often where there is smoke there is fire and in many of these types of deals, early denails later prove to be false.
If it happens, McNealy will be gone, 50% headcount reductions will happen at the minimum, and every product line that does not translate into short-term gains will be axed. I would expect and long-term architecture plans to be shelved, an emphasis on squeezing money from Java, and some changes in how the products are marketed.
Private equity firms typically want to bring the company back to an IPO within four years, and typially the changes they bring in are radical in terms of timing but obvious in terms of strategy.
we use pdf for engineering drawings. the infinite scalability of PDF vector graphics and, with acrobat 6 & 7, level control over the display, is impossible in pure html.
If you were to say that you just like how easy it is to create scalable representations with PDF tools, I would have left this alone, but if you are telling me that you CANNOT create borwser-readable scalable graphics, I say check out SVG.
Hurrah sir! Why people insist on imposing the page-format domain on a tool that complete subverts it is beyond me. With proper coding, almost any PDF document can be coded as something that will render in a web browser on its own. Zooming in, page breaks, etc, are all total anachronisms.
I like your idea in terms of "chuckle" factor, but frankly, providing "sucky" products for Windows later than OSX/Linux products would be a really elaborate suicide plan for Adobe. Easier just to sell off the company and give money back to shareholders.
Now, RMS's concept of Free Software is an ideal which *does* provide for itself quite well in the real world. Indeed the freedom translates into tangible economic advantages. I would submit that these economic advantages emenate from the ideal of Freedom and not the other way around.
Which was my point. Yes we have all read Friedman's thesis that economic power and political power are related, don't trot this out as original thinking.
So what if free software is about cost for some users?
No problem, as long as they understand that the people who instituted and orchestrate and own (by virtue of copyright/copyleft) these projects do in fact care.
If they feel very strongly about their position they can try NetBSD, which has no GPL code as far as I know.
He wasn't talking about cost so much as about the right tool for the job.
BitKeeper stopped being the right tool for the job.
Maybe you can adapt or write a free program to solve it, but there's some cost to that, be it time or effort or whatever. Sometimes the closed program is worth it because it's less hassle, and you can get on with whatever it is you're doing.
Linus isn't requiring your assistance in improving git, and he is already getting on with whatever it was he was doing. The cost to you is zero, the cost to the kernel project is more or less a sunk cost at this point, all that is left is the benefits of more free code.
Are you saying that you actually inspect the code of the stuff you compile?
Sometimes, and I am sure the people at Apple do when they incorporate various open codebases into their own work (just thought I would throw that in so you will think about free software next time you are sitting at your pink iMac).
No, I'm saying that if I sell software it is for the purpose of profit and to do that I would want to at least try to protect my serivce by closing the source. If I want to develop something with the intention of releasing it for free, and I have, then I do it for nothing more than furthering the open source community.
Thats your choice, the market exists so we can adopt or reject your choices.
When you try to mix the two it *usually* dosn't pan out.
I'll be sure to tell the RedHat millionaires that next time I see them at the Polo club.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, it is slow because of how it is built. If it was rewritten it wouldn't be Pugs, it would be something else.
Pugs is incredibly slow, slower than any 5.x release of Perl. Its in Tcl territory. The way Pugs is built, it is unlikely to get much faster, hence it is useless to anyone who really uses perl on a daily basis, which is why they should stop indulging it and move on.
The last thing I want to see is the Perl6 project weighed down by another goal. Its bad enough people are wasting so much time toying around with Pugs, which regardless of what you read is throwaway code, yet seems to be capturing the interest of most of the posts on the perl6 lists.
And you bought it.
Certain groups think the popular adoption of religious doctrine in public institutions is a good thing. In a decade when sermons are required to be approved by the Federal Spiritual Communications Board, they'll understand the separation of church and state was designed to protect them, not marginalize them.
How many times have we seen "shuttle replacements"??? And Popular Mechanics/Science has just turned into military industrial porn. Do even 1% of their "artist renderings" of nuclear fighter aircraft or nanotube-hulled destroyers or hypersonic submarines (yes, all improbable/impossible, that is my point) ever make it even into the clay mockup phase?
People need to get over their hang-up that only the NYT, WSJ etc can report the news. Reuters AP etc all provide quality reporting (which is why their articles constitute over 50% of the content of every newspaper), and this content is widely available on the web. The NYT is neither deeper (more intellectual) or broader (more variety) than most other news sources these days.
Thank you. For far too long people have tried to cast old media (film, print, audio) as being in the "content" business, but this is absurd. People can and have created quality content (even pre-web) completely outside of the infrastructure of old media. All these companies really own is manufacturing, distribution, and most importantly placement rights (the ability to drop their physical product in the right places).
These firms are in fact in the manufacturing and distribution business, which is been made totally redundant by the web, which is why they will die.
Its not that it "should" be free, it is free - every fact that the NYT wants to charge for will be available elsewhere (99% of time) and will be crawled, indexed and cached by a relevance engine.
As for newspaper "quality", give me a break, over half of the content is repurposed wire feeds, even for esteemed rags like the NYT. People get very misty-eyed when envisaging the apparent loftiness of the NYT, WSJ, etc, but mostly it is undeserved or a remnant of another era.
I'm not the one pontificating about world hunger to fawning morons. In any case your entire post is a non-sequiter - where did I say his money should not go to sustainable development. That said, I applaud your shabby attempt to appear intelligent....keep trying.
I give Page and Brin kudos for pagerank, but frankly I don't think he knows anything about space travel and even less about solving world hunger, although if he were to start, he could sign over all his shares in GOOG to a feed-the-children charity, which I doubt he will do (talk's cheap, Larry).
I wasn't specifically referring to Google at this point, and of course any private firm that offers shares, is doing so because it hopes to IPO one day.
A company like Sun, with tens of thousands of employees, has an incredible burn rate with regards to compensation, benefits, etc. Sun could easily go broke in a few years unless revenues ratchet up. Novell, SGI etc are in a better position by virtue of having few(er) employees, so their burn rates are not too bad. Microsoft is in a class all its own, the annual interest alone from their horde is larger than the cash balance of many firms with as many employees. It will take a very long time for MS to die.
Now you could try to self-fund from the firm's income, but that won't happen quickly unless you are selling drugs.
Also note that your employees, the best ones, are constantly being lured away by the thought if stock options from a competitor. Compensation is important, and its easier to let the investing public do the heavy lifting.
If it happens, McNealy will be gone, 50% headcount reductions will happen at the minimum, and every product line that does not translate into short-term gains will be axed. I would expect and long-term architecture plans to be shelved, an emphasis on squeezing money from Java, and some changes in how the products are marketed.
Private equity firms typically want to bring the company back to an IPO within four years, and typially the changes they bring in are radical in terms of timing but obvious in terms of strategy.
If you were to say that you just like how easy it is to create scalable representations with PDF tools, I would have left this alone, but if you are telling me that you CANNOT create borwser-readable scalable graphics, I say check out SVG.
Hurrah sir! Why people insist on imposing the page-format domain on a tool that complete subverts it is beyond me. With proper coding, almost any PDF document can be coded as something that will render in a web browser on its own. Zooming in, page breaks, etc, are all total anachronisms.
I like your idea in terms of "chuckle" factor, but frankly, providing "sucky" products for Windows later than OSX/Linux products would be a really elaborate suicide plan for Adobe. Easier just to sell off the company and give money back to shareholders.
Which was my point. Yes we have all read Friedman's thesis that economic power and political power are related, don't trot this out as original thinking.
But by granting this, the coder is implying that they in fact do feel that free software is a right, or they would not have chosen the GPL.
RMS isn't in this to save money, he is in it to preserve freedoms that are important to him.
No problem, as long as they understand that the people who instituted and orchestrate and own (by virtue of copyright/copyleft) these projects do in fact care.
If they feel very strongly about their position they can try NetBSD, which has no GPL code as far as I know.
BitKeeper stopped being the right tool for the job.
Maybe you can adapt or write a free program to solve it, but there's some cost to that, be it time or effort or whatever. Sometimes the closed program is worth it because it's less hassle, and you can get on with whatever it is you're doing.
Linus isn't requiring your assistance in improving git, and he is already getting on with whatever it was he was doing. The cost to you is zero, the cost to the kernel project is more or less a sunk cost at this point, all that is left is the benefits of more free code.
Sometimes, and I am sure the people at Apple do when they incorporate various open codebases into their own work (just thought I would throw that in so you will think about free software next time you are sitting at your pink iMac).
Thats your choice, the market exists so we can adopt or reject your choices.
When you try to mix the two it *usually* dosn't pan out.
I'll be sure to tell the RedHat millionaires that next time I see them at the Polo club.